(30-10-2012 06:20 PM)earmuffs Wrote: It may not be the gold mine everyone thinks it is.
(or it may be, I don't know the numbers)

In 2005 Milton Friedman, along with 500 "leading" economist projecting it would save the government between 10 and 14 billion USD, which in the grand scheme of things isn't going to solve all of our economic problems, but it would certainly help. This figure does not take into account indirect economic growth, so what the actual number is, who knows? The reasons for legalizing it is an issue of civil rights first and foremost to me, but their are plenty of other good reasons to legalize it as well such as medicinal value, effect on violent crime, lowering artificially inflated prices of drugs, probable reduction in death because of regulations, reduction in alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, etc, etc.

(30-10-2012 06:20 PM)earmuffs Wrote: It may not be the gold mine everyone thinks it is.
(or it may be, I don't know the numbers)

In 2005 Milton Friedman, along with 500 "leading" economist projecting it would save the government between 10 and 14 billion USD, which in the grand scheme of things isn't going to solve all of our economic problems, but it would certainly help. This figure does not take into account indirect economic growth, so what the actual number is, who knows? The reasons for legalizing it is an issue of civil rights first and foremost to me, but their are plenty of other good reasons to legalize it as well such as medicinal value, effect on violent crime, lowering artificially inflated prices of drugs, probable reduction in death because of regulations, reduction in alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, etc, etc.

Prohibition has never worked, and never will, plain and simple.

Thanks for giving muffies the clarity on that ..

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire

I lol'd.
Though you are right, basic supply and demand in a free market economics.

As for your whole post, the problem is, where do you draw the line?

I'm trying to apply this to things like gay rights and stuff seeming you want to make this a rights argument.
People argue that if you allow gays to marry you then have to allow less savory things to marry like people to animals.
The same here, if you allow weed to be legal under your argument you'll have to allow things like meth to be legal.
And nobody will disagree that meth is bad for your health.

This is always the issue with public policy, "where do you draw the line in the sand".

#1 Before slavery became prominent in the southern states, pot was never a problem. But around that time it was made illegal anyways. There are a number of different arguments as to why. I won't get into them here. Suffice to say we have plenty of evidence that legal marijuana is not a big problem.

#2 After marijuana was made illegal, it became an exponentially bigger problem. Like DL said, prohibition doesn't work. Even the fucking prohibitionists will admit that it doesn't. But then they qualify it with, "well, at least not in the past" wink wink. Regardless though, we have plenty of evidence that illegal marijuana IS a big problem.

The main question remains....why prohibition? It's a gateway drug? Um, no. Not even an idea supported by people with the most meager knowledge of cannabis. The gateway drug theory was debunked around the same time we figured out the earth wasn't flat. It just never made as many headlines.

Is it bad for us? There's an interesting question. But if we have to ask, why the fuck aren't we concentrating on the prohibition of OxyContin?? We already KNOW that shit's bad for us, and doctors hand it out like candy. Yes, inhaling ANY smoke is not good for the lungs. But outside of banning back yard cook outs, I don't think the government gets to tell me not to do that. I know it's bad. I feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. My decision.

#1 Before slavery became prominent in the southern states, pot was never a problem. But around that time it was made illegal anyways. There are a number of different arguments as to why. I won't get into them here. Suffice to say we have plenty of evidence that legal marijuana is not a big problem.

#2 After marijuana was made illegal, it became an exponentially bigger problem. Like DL said, prohibition doesn't work. Even the fucking prohibitionists will admit that it doesn't. But then they qualify it with, "well, at least not in the past" wink wink. Regardless though, we have plenty of evidence that illegal marijuana IS a big problem.

The main question remains....why prohibition? It's a gateway drug? Um, no. Not even an idea supported by people with the most meager knowledge of cannabis. The gateway drug theory was debunked around the same time we figured out the earth wasn't flat. It just never made as many headlines.

Is it bad for us? There's an interesting question. But if we have to ask, why the fuck aren't we concentrating on the prohibition of OxyContin?? We already KNOW that shit's bad for us, and doctors hand it out like candy. Yes, inhaling ANY smoke is not good for the lungs. But outside of banning back yard cook outs, I don't think the government gets to tell me not to do that. I know it's bad. I feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. My decision.

This "it's bad but so is XX" is flawed IMO.
It's like saying, I just stabbed you so it's okay if I then shotgun you to the head, because I already stabbed you. Just because one thing is bad and is already in use shouldn't mean that something else that is bad that isn't in use should then be allowed to be in use.
I think there are better arguments FOR legalizing it then that particular argument.

And again, where do you draw the line?
Should meth heads not have the right to complete fuck over their lives?

You have to figure out the line between the state's invested interest in public health and safety, and the public's invested interest in rights and freedoms.

I personally believe the line to be slightly more liberal then it is now to include things like cannabis or party pills. But I believe that is where the line needs to be drawn.